https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760451 Non-compliance with the declaration requirement under Rule 66(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 could justify an initial presumption of attempted evasion and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 67. However, where the consignment of jewellery brought from Mumbai was later taken back in full outside Kerala through Walayar and Coimbatore, and the check post authorities acknowledged that movement, there was no actual sale within the State. In that factual setting, the basis for completed evasion lost force, so the penalty could not be sustained in full and was reduced. en-us Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Oct 2024 17:48:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760451 Non-compliance with the declaration requirement under Rule 66(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 could justify an initial presumption of attempted evasion and the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 67. However, where the consignment of jewellery brought from Mumbai was later taken back in full outside Kerala through Walayar and Coimbatore, and the check post authorities acknowledged that movement, there was no actual sale within the State. In that factual setting, the basis for completed evasion lost force, so the penalty could not be sustained in full and was reduced. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Mon, 07 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760451